A suspended Roman Catholic priest who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine and bought a sex shop to possibly launder his drug money is asking a federal judge for leniency at his sentencing Thursday in Connecticut.

Monsignor Kevin Wallin, whose lawyer says was lonely and overworked when he turned to drugs and became an addict, agreed as part of his 2013 guilty plea to a possible prison sentence of 10 to 11 years. He's now asking for four years in prison and 500 hours of community service.

The 63-year-old priest has been incarcerated for the past two years.

Prosecutors say he headed the meth distribution conspiracy, and they are seeking a sentence of at least 10 years, which they say is appropriate for the crime.

Wallin began receiving methamphetamine in the mail from California suppliers in 2008 or 2009 and by about 2011, he began supplying meth to a New York distributor, authorities say. The quantity of meth supplied to Wallin "grew exponentially," prosecutors say. What began as supplies of 3.5 grams grew to meth deliveries in the ounces and eventually 1 to 3 pounds a month, authorities say.

Wallin also bought an adult video and sex toy shop in North Haven and apparently intended to launder drug proceeds, federal agents say in court documents.

Wallin's public defender says he has "zero criminal history" and is a beloved priest "with a record of extraordinary charitable service." The defense cites Wallin's three decades of charitable service and more than 80 letters of support, including one from the late Cardinal Edward Egan.

In court papers, the defense describes a priest who coped with the local parish's financial troubles as best he could at the start of the Recession in 2008. He turned to drugs, particularly meth, as an escape, the defense says.

Wallin is addicted to meth and could receive community-based substance abuse treatment, his lawyer says.

Prosecutors responded by saying the government "expresses no opinion" on Wallin's need for education, medical care and correctional treatment in the most effective way.

Monsignor Kevin Wallin, whose lawyer says was lonely and overworked when he turned to drugs and became an addict, agreed as part of his 2013 guilty plea to a possible prison sentence of 10 to 11 years.

Or will agree to Life without parole if they assign him to a juvenile facility.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

An old story to be sure. He was sentenced to 5.5 years in May 2015, getting credit for 28 months time served. He should have gotten the full 10 years and probably would have but for all the local Catholic hierarchy racing to the court to plead for leniency and promise that he wouldn't return to his meth-dealing porn-peddling money-laundering cross-dressing ways.

He should have gotten the full 10 years and probably would have but for all the local Catholic hierarchy racing to the court to plead for leniency and promise that he wouldn't return to his meth-dealing porn-peddling money-laundering cross-dressing ways.

You have to pardon me for thinking and saying they were protecting themselves in case of future arrest,not protecting him.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

I'm still not sure what a "broad-bottom'd popish plot" is supposed to be but it sounds just awful to me. LOL

Apparently, King George III defeated the Catholic reform bill in 1807 and it took until 1829 to finally get one passed.

According to an art catalog, they give this description of this print: "King George III, his face hidden by a pillar, grabs the pigtail of Lord Grenville, and holds his scepter as if ready to strike Grenville. Members of the government, including Howick, holding a torn copy of the Catholic Bill, Ellenborough, Buckingham, Temple, Windham, Moira, Sidmouth and Sheridan, rush from the room, falling on each other in the process. Petty and Erskine are sprawled on the floor. The king stands in front of his throne next to which is a Bible and a crown."

Probably some reference to the Broad Bottom ministry, led by the Pelham brothers in Parliament for about 10 years starting around 1745. They were all Whigs (like Abraham Lincoln was until the American Whigs collapsed and became Republicans). Grenville, whose pigtail is grabbed by the king, was the prime minister and was the brother-in-law of the great Whig, William Pitt for whom Pittsburgh is named, in fact almost anything named Chatham or starting with the word Pitt is named after Pitt and his son who also became PM. The Pitt family was one of the greatest in the history of Britain.

I'm thinking that King George III didn't want to end the restrictions on Catholics and the Whig party had been scheming for 50 years to end those restrictions. George III died around 1820 and they finally passed their bill in 1829.

I'm thinking that King George III didn't want to end the restrictions on Catholics and the Whig party had been scheming for 50 years to end those restrictions. George III died around 1820 and they finally passed their bill in 1829.

Thanks. Once again,you have "skooled me" as the kids of today say.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

Well, it's worth considering that the Catholics have been bashed in centuries past. King George, BTW, was head of the Church of England (not a pope of the CofE, that is the archbishop of Canterbury). So he was anti-Catholic as a result of them posing a direct challenge (in his mind) to his state religion.

The English had a real thing about Catholics. And the feeling was mutual.

Recall Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Treason Plot (a.k.a. the Jesuit Plot). Fawkes, a Catholic terrorist, tried to blow up Parliament and King James I (of King James Bible fame) by renting storerooms commercially available beneath Parliament and then filling them with barrels of gunpowder.

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was a failed assassination attempt against King James I of England and VI of Scotland by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby.

The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state. Catesby may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater religious tolerance under King James had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. His fellow plotters were John Wright, Thomas Wintour, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour, Christopher Wright, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby and Francis Tresham. Fawkes, who had 10 years of military experience fighting in the Spanish Netherlands in suppression of the Dutch Revolt, was given charge of the explosives.

The plot was revealed to the authorities in an anonymous letter sent to William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, on 26 October 1605. During a search of the House of Lords at about midnight on 4 November 1605, Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowderenough to reduce the House of Lords to rubbleand arrested. Most of the conspirators fled from London as they learned of the plot's discovery, trying to enlist support along the way. Several made a stand against the pursuing Sheriff of Worcester and his men at Holbeche House; in the ensuing battle, Catesby was one of those shot and killed. At their trial on 27 January 1606, eight of the survivors, including Fawkes, were convicted and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Details of the assassination attempt were allegedly known by the principal Jesuit of England, Father Henry Garnet. Although he was convicted of treason and sentenced to death, doubt has been cast on how much he really knew of the plot. As its existence was revealed to him through confession, Garnet was prevented from informing the authorities by the absolute confidentiality of the confessional. Although anti-Catholic legislation was introduced soon after the plot's discovery, many important and loyal Catholics retained high office during King James I's reign. The thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot was commemorated for many years afterwards by special sermons and other public events such as the ringing of church bells, which have evolved into the Bonfire Night of today.

It was sheer luck that King James and the entire Parliament weren't killed in one stroke.

Well, it's worth considering that the Catholics have been bashed in centuries past. King George, BTW, was head of the Church of England (not a pope of the CofE, that is the archbishop of Canterbury). So he was anti-Catholic as a result of them posing a direct challenge (in his mind) to his state religion.

Wasn't it Henry the 8th that broke the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on Europe by creating the Church of England after they denied him an annulment to his marriage?

IIRC,this,more than anything else led to the Reformation. Once one Royal House stands up and puts their foot down to end Vatican meddling in their nations politics,it gave encouragement to the others.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

Wasn't it Henry the 8th that broke the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on Europe by creating the Church of England after they denied him an annulment to his marriage?

You are correct.

I posted about the Gunpowder Plot and the monarch as the head of the CoE to illustrate why there was still so much anti-Catholic sentiment in England during the era. George III recalled his predecessor and distant shirttail ancestor, James I, almost getting murdered by Catholic terrorists along with the entire House of Lords 200 years earlier.

A lot of English history revolves around keeping the throne out of Catholic hands. This suspicion of all things Catholic is something that we Americans inherited since our Founders were all rather typical Englishmen. We call them British but they were Englishmen, through and through, back in the era when "Englishman" had a very particular meaning.